The Ghosts of Leadership Past, Present and Future

In the Charles Dickens classic, A Christmas Carol, Ebeneezer Scrooge is visited by four spirits: One is his old business partner Jacob Marley. The other three are the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future. In keeping with that theme let's imagine a visit from the ghosts of Leadership past, present and future...

"Ooohhhhh! (That's what ghosts say!) I'm the ghost of Leadership Past and I wanted to show you how things used to be at your company. Remember when we first opened our doors? Remember the excitement we felt because we were a start up? Remember the great 'family' feel our organization had? Wow, we had some great ideas and a 'nothing can stop us' attitude. And isn't it funny how looking back we don't really think about the stupid mistakes we made - only how great everything was then compared to now? Remember that one great leader - she was awesome! Nothing like the leaders we have now. If only we could make our company like it was then."

"Bah! Humbug! That's all history. I'm the ghost of Leadership Future and I'm here to say the past doesn't matter. What's important is the future. We need to forget all of that history stuff because it's not going to help us be ready for upcoming challenges and opportunities. We need to be embracing new strategies, technologies and, yes I'll say it, leadership styles! If we're not constantly breaking new ground we're moving backwards. Let's make way for the next big thing!"

"Oh My! No wonder you guys are dead. I'm the ghost of Leadership Present and I've got to tell you you're both wrong ..... and right. The past is important. We need to build on the things we've done really well and leverage our legacy strengths - but we can't pine away for the past at the expense of the present or the future. Yes, some things may have been better back in the day, but be honest, some things were worse. And the future is very important - but not so important we sacrifice our core principles. We have to make sure we never lose site of those key values that made us who we are. I'm a bit partial but I think we need to stay grounded in the here and now - holding on to the things that got us here but keeping our eyes open to the future."

God Bless us everyone and Merry Christmas!

Effective Leadership: 20-60-20 - a win-win-win scenario

In our Coach Me 2 class we spend a little time discussing the 20/60/20 rule. This rule says that on a given team roughly 20 percent of our agents will be superstars, 20 percent will be strugglers and 60 percent will be average performers. So, with which group should the manager spend the most time?

The manager should dedicate the most time to the middle 60 - because that's the majority of his team. Unfortunately, however, many of the managers I've talked with say most of their time (and energy) is spent managing the bottom 20. Wouldn't it be great if there were a way to ensure that our top 20 and middle 60 got the same level of attention as our bottom 20? "But there just isn't time" you might say. Well today is your lucky day!

This is one of the most effective things a leader can do: use your top 20 to help you develop your bottom 20. This is a win-win-win scenario. The first winner is the top 20 agent. He or she feels appreciated and recognized when you say to them "You do a really good job at X. I would like for you to spend some time with (insert bottom 20 agent's name here) and show them some of the things that work well for you. Then report back to me and let me know how it went." Interestingly, one of the key workplace motivators for an employee is being entrusted with additional responsibilities. This scenario fits that bill quite nicely.

The second winner is the bottom 20 agent. They will benefit from getting some one-on-one "coaching" from a successful practioner, and them getting it from another face can't hurt either. And, let's be honest, if we have been in a management role for awhile we may not be as good in the trenches as our top 20 agents are; so tips and tricks coming from these folks might hold a bit more weight than those coming from us.

The third winner is the manager. Obviously, by leveraging our top twenty to work with our bottom 20 we've created much more time for ourselves to work with our middle 20. We could spend alot more space talking about all the cool things that come about from using the 20/60/20 rule but all we really need to know is that it works. Give it a try and see what happens.

Career Management: "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!"

We recently had a young man complete six weeks of new hire training at our Couer D'Alene call center. Unlike his classmates who took full advantage of the company's rather casual dress code, this young man dressed in business attire throughout training. It wasn't until the newhire group graduated that the class realized this individual was a new agent just like them. They had all assumed he was their manager observing their performance in training - simply because of the way he was dressed!

ZZ Top reference aside, how we dress is quite important. I know we've grown up hearing things like "don't judge a book by it's cover" and "looks don't matter", but the reality is looks and dress do matter. People make judgements about us based on how we dress. The last thing we want is for our personal appearance or dress to be a distraction or detriment to how we are perceived in the organization.

In a career exploration class I facilitate we actually spend a lot of time talking about how to dress in the workplace. The adage about dressing for the job you want instead of the job you have makes total sense! And though it may seem superficial, one of the easiest things you can do to help yourself move up in an organization is to upscale your wardrobe.

President Obama: Excitedly Dissapointed...and proud of it!

This is my first post since the presidential election, so here are just a few thoughts: Is it possible to be dissapointed and proud at the same time? I did not vote for Barrack Obama. Politically speaking, I felt much more comfortable (though not excited) with John McCain so I voted for him. Am I dissapointed my guy lost? Sure. To be honest, I'm worried what an Obama administration (with a democrat controlled congress) might mean to the well being of our country over the next four years (taxes, defense, economy, etc...) But I can't help feeling excited by the historic nature of Obama's victory.

The fact that we've elected the first African-American president is a great thing. It says something about us as a nation. It says, as many of the African-American interviewees I've seen over the past week have said, that this truly is the land of opportunity for ALL . And in a strange way I actually feel that the conservative movement has been vindicated by Obama's election. For years many on the left have decried the US for being racist. Will they still consider our country racist? Probably, but their argument will hold even less water now. More whites than African Americans voted for Obama. That doesn't sound like a racist country to me. I was encouraged by the fact that, for the most part, race didn't have a whole lot to do with Obama's election. Obama ran a stronger campaign than McCain and he deserved to win. If his presidency gives hope and inspiration to a sector of our society who has otherwise felt dissinterested or disenfranchised, that's a good thing.

Even with it's flaws our democratic process works pretty darn well. I am proud that we've reached this milestone even though I voted against Obama. My vote against him was based on his positions - not the color of his skin. And in four years I will proudly vote against him again or for him based on his performance - not the color of his skin. And that's really the point: we are a much better nation if the election of Barack Obama means folks on both sides of the political spectrum have finally moved beyond race.

Corporate Culture: "All in the Family"

The family was the world's first "organization". Wise men and women down through the ages have discussed the vital role families play in society. Most societal ills can be traced back to the breakdown of the family unit. Debates rage about what defines marriage and family. Families are a big deal to everyone because there is so much at stake: A nation or society is only as strong as its familes.

Isn't it funny how as kids we would fight tooth and nail with our siblings. I can remember a few fights I had with my brothers - name calling, cruel insults, eye gouging, bloody noses, body slams - you name it. But if someone outside of the family were to threaten or bully me or one of my brothers the other two would be their to defend the other to the last breath. That's what families do. What is it about families that makes us so invested emotionally - both good emotions and bad emotions? Well, I don't understand all of the science but I think it's part of the grand plan. It's at home with our family that we first learn the lessons we'll need to be successful in life. And yet it seems we sometimes compartmentalize or differentiate our "family self" from our "professional self". Perhaps there are things we've learned from our families that we could apply to our organizations?

Isn't it great how your family loves you unconditionally? You can be the world's biggest bonehead and your family will still accept you. You can be in between prison terms and you'll still get invited over to your parents' home for Thanksgiving dinner. You can continually fued with siblings, possibly even coming to physical blows, but if someone else threatens a family member all of sudden you'll rush to their defense. Blood truly is thicker than water. Except in very rare occasions, a person's family will love and accept them no matter what. Familes don't give up on each other.

Our workplace organizations are different. First, we get to choose the people who will be in our organization. Second, if things aren't going well, we can always ask people to leave. We have all kinds of metrics we can use to determine a person's "worth" to the organization. If they aren't measuring up, we don't have to keep them around. And when we "let someone go" there's always a supply of new people waiting to take their place. Imagine if familes had "performance plans" like organizations have. "Sorry son, but we're just not seeing the type of performance we need from you so we're going to have to let you go." I'm sure my parents felt like having that talk with me once or twice!

At the risk of sounding very touchy-feely let me propose this little exercise: Imagine your team at work is "family". You didn't get to choose them, they're imperfect, and you can't get rid of them. Some of them have difficult personalities. Some of them are lazy. Some of them do embarrassing things in public. Some of them disagree with you and will tell you right to your face! Some of them belong to a different political party, church or bowling league than you do. If some of them are underperforming, too bad. You can't just replace them with a new family member. To put it another way - for better or for worse - you're stuck with them. If this were the case, what types of things would you do differently? How would your "performance management" change? Would you be more creative about finding a good fit for each of your employees? Would your focus be more long term than short term? Would you be more forgiving? Would you put yourself in their shoes a little more often? Spend a little time pondering this scenario.

In one of the CORE training classes I regularly facilitate I ask the question "what has made our company successful in the past?" In almost every class I'll have a tenured employee say that one of the keys to our company's past success was that our work environment was "like a family." What makes a work environment "like a family"? Do we feel accepted? Do we feel like folks we work with care about us? Do we feel like we are valued unconditionally?

Obviously we have a job to perform and business needs to be met. Businesses exist to drive profits and build stockholder wealth, but I think there can be a balance between bottom-line needs and the emotional needs of our people. People may choose to "give up" on themselves and, let's be honest, sometimes our organization may not be a good fit for everybody. If that's the case, that's okay. Hopefully, though, we as leaders will not be the FIRST one to "give up" on an individual. Here's where the "family" model really comes into play. Your family continues to accept you and root for you and even invite over to Thanksgiving dinner - even if you are "underperforming".

What can we do as leaders to keep the positive aspects of the family relationship alive in our workplace? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Model the Way

I'm in the middle of reading The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner. This is an excellent book I highly recommend. When I have more time I'll go into greater detail but I wanted to post very briefly on practice one of the five practices of exemplary leadership: Model the Way.

How often do "leaders" sabotage themselves because they don't practice what they preach? I'm reminded of the old adage "what you ARE screams so loud I can't here what you're SAYING". Sometimes we put the cart before the horse by worrying about the message more than the messenger (ourselves). Covey talks about the need to have our private victories (mastery of self) before public victories.

Kouzes and Posner sum it up perfectly. Effective leaders must model the very behavior they seek for their organization. And it's no coincidence that Model the Way is the first of the five practices. Effective leadership starts with the leader. If the leader has not internalized exemplary leadership practices himself or herself, he or she cannot expect exemplary "followership" from the organization. We'll talk more about this in an upcoming post.

Another non-political political post: The leadership styles of McCain and Obama

Here's an interesting read I came across at the LA Times. It compares the leadership styles of John McCain and Barack Obama.

Click here to view story:

From the bookshelf....

I just picked up this book for a buck in Fort Collins. At one time I was a huge Clancy fan but haven't read anything of his for the past five or six years. This one is Into the Storm - a nonfiction book about military leadership. I'm always fascinated by military leadership as it deals with life and death situations - literally! Plus Clancy is a great writer.

Now if I could just get through the five different books I'm reading right now!

Can we talk?

I’ve recently been working with two different teams focusing on training initiatives. One team is tasked with delivering leadership skills to ops and team managers, the other is putting together a regular training session for more senior leaders – directors, executives, etc. Interaction with both of these teams has reminded me of a very simple concept: it’s good to talk!

I have been impressed with the great ideas that have been percolating in both groups. In both instances, folks have been brought together that wouldn’t normally interact with each other. It has been very enlightening to get leaders together from various accounts and departments and the synergy has been unmistakable and quite contagious. I think the great discussion taking place in both groups will be as beneficial to the organization as the training programs that will ultimately be built. Sometimes just talking is a wonderful thing.

A bi-partisan solution to the mess we're in...

This is not a political blog but I think I've got a solution to the current financial mess we're in. Granted, it's not a quick fix but in the long run I think it will help tremendously. Perhaps you've heard of this strategy. It's called "vote the bums out!"

Here's my strategy: From now on we need to always vote for the non-incumbent candidate. It's as simple as that. If you're a democrat then you vote for the non-incumbent democrat in the primary election. If you're a republican you vote for the non-incumbent republican in the primary election. That part is pretty easy. The hard part comes during the general election - you have to vote for whichever candidate is not the incumbent even if that means crossing party lines. This may be hard to bring ourselves to do, but the only way to see any real change is to get back to what the founding fathers intended.

In alot of ways this will make the whole election process much easier. Heck, you don't even have to stay up on the issues. All you have to do is vote against the incumbent. No matter what - No exceptions - even if you like the incumbent. You've got to vote them out. The only little wrinkle comes when neither candidate is an incumbent (like the current presidential race). If that's the case, no problem; feel free to engage in all the rancorous partisan squabbling you want. Just remember, if your guy or gal wins, you have to vote him or her out in four years. This plan only works if we are constantly rotating a fresh crop of politicians. Imagine how much better things would be if our politicians were not entrenched like they currently are. Vote the bums out! Even if you like the bums. Vote the incumbent out every single ding dang time! (You know I'm serious when I start dropping the ding dang bomb!)

The founders never intended for politics to be a career. The idea was that a farmer, shop keeper, lawyer or doctor would leave their vocation for a short time to serve in public office (for two, four or six years depending on the office) then go back home and resume their normal life. I'm sure the founders would be rolling in their graves if they saw the dismal quality of our elected leaders right now. And the lure of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other Wall Street perks has definately sullied the virtue of the process. I recently heard someone refer to congress as the "island of misfit toys". I couldn't agree more. What do we do with misfit toys? We return them! Let's just send them all back home after one term!

It is pure folley to think the very boneheads who caused the current problem - boneheads abound on both sides of the aisle - can solve it. Personally, I will not be voting for Obama but I do agree with his "Vote for Change" theme, albeit in a different context perhaps. So, on November 4th I will be voting against every incumbent on the ballot. Please join me.

I'll step down from my soapbox now....

From the bookshelf....

We're currently in the process of conducting a director's forum and will be using The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner as our text. This is considered one of the standards in leadership. I've never read it so I'm looking forward to seeing what they have to say.

Effective Leadership: A Walla Walla winery and the law of the harvest

Last Friday the entire North Idaho L&D team took a field trip to Walla Walla to tour Hence Winery. Even though I don't drink and was not involved in the sampling that the rest of the team enjoyed, I found myself quite fascinated by the whole wine making process. It reminded me of Covey's discussion of the Law of the Harvest.

We learned from the winery owner and our tour guide, Henderson Orchard, that it takes, at minimum, five years from the time the first starts are planted until a winery can actually have wine ready for the market. That's alot of lead time! Imagine all the work and care that must happen during that five years. And there are no short cuts! Owning and operating a winery is a major investment - of time, money, energy and sweat, all in the hopes that after years of hard work it will pay off.

Covey points out that farmers (or winemakers for that matter) can't "cram" for the "final exam" like some of us did in school. Imagine if a farmer kept putting off all the important things that need to be done to have a healthy crop - plowing, raking, seeding, fertilizing, watering, weeding - until the night before harvest time. That would be silly right? Yet do we sometimes try to cut corners when it comes to developing our employees? Effectively leading others is hard work. There's no "cramming" allowed. Perhaps you've heard the banking account analogy? Forging a healthy relationship is like maintaining a healthy bank account. We need to be making more deposits than withdrawals or we will go broke. And a "broke" relationship is not much fun for anyone. (I'll discuss this analogy in more detail in a later post.)

A good relationship with our team (or our spouse or kids) is governed by the Law of the Harvest just as much as the vineyard. Without planning, planting, growing, nurturing, hard work and plenty of patience, neither will be very productive.

Employee Motivation: Maslow and Money...The path of least resistance

What's the most common thing companies use to motivate their employees? Money! Don't get me wrong. We all appreciate money and none of us would turn it down if it were offered to us, but is monetary reward really the best way to motivate people?

I mentioned in my previous post about Maslow's Hierarchy that leveraging higher level needs will yield better results than focusing on lower level needs. Yet money is usually the motivator of choice, particularly in a sales environment.

Remember the five levels in Maslow's Hierarchy? 1.) Physical, 2.) Safety-Security, 3.) Social-Belonging, 4.) Esteem, 5.) Self-Actualization. These build on one another. For example, I would not be highly motivated by social or esteem factors if I don't have enough to eat. The needs in the lower levels need to be met before the higher level motivators kick in. Money is actually a Safety-Security factor, that's only the second level of the hierarchy. "But money is the most important reason people work," you might say. Money is important, but actually it is not the main reason people stay with or decide to leave a job.

Research the Kelly Company conducted found that folks looking for a job cite organizational factors (money, benefits, company reputation) as the primary determinant in whether or not they'll join a company - followed by job factors (duties, schedule, training) and then by leader factors (trustworthiness, coaching, flexibility). However, something very interesting happens once an employee has joined an organization. The list flips. The leader factors become the most important thing to the employee. Would you believe that pay comes in at number five (behind things like coworkers, career opportunities, and schedule) for reasons people leave an organization? The number one reason people leave is their leader. Maybe you've heard this cliche: "People don't leave companies, they leave managers." According to this research, it's true.

So why do we so often default to money as the prime motivator? I think we do it because it's easy. It takes much less effort to throw some extra cash at folks than to actually make a person feel like they're part of a team or build their esteem. Perhaps giving cash away is the path of least resistance? It's true the top three levels of the hierarchy require "heavy lifting". It's hard work to motivate and build people up in the face of everyday job pressures but the payoff is worth it. And a funny thing about focusing on the higher levels - it doesn't really have to "cost" the company anything. I'm not saying we should all do away with money-based incentives. But if we think that's all we need to do to keep our employees motivated, we're missing out.

From the bookshelf....

I thought I'd start posting a little blurb on books I'm currently reading - Not necessarily a review but just an update on what I'm reading. Right now I am working my way through two great books. One is The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni. It's written as a story which makes it a very easy read. So far, I love it and highly recommend it. I'm sure I'll have more to comment on once I've finished so stay tuned.

I'm also reading The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell. Again, a great book. It's John Maxwell so you know it's going to be good. I'll be using this as a reference for an upcoming training class we're putting together.

Employee Motivation: See you at the top....of Maslow's Hierarchy

Any of us who've sat through a psychology 101 class are at least aware of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In 1954 Abraham Maslow mapped out his theory on motivation and it has become one of the standards in explaining what makes us tick. Without dissecting his entire pyramid I want to jump straight to the top - the self actualization level of the hierarchy. What does self-actualization mean? In my view, when a person has reached true self-actualization they feel they are doing what they were put on this earth to do; They are living their potential; They have met the "measure of their creation". Now be honest: How many of us have met or will ever meet this level of satisfaction? If you could choose to do anything in the world you wanted to do would you choose your current job? It's ok if you said "no".

Think about what makes you...you: What are your key talents, interests, strengths, capabilities etc... If you are fortunate enough to have a "job" where you are able to leverage each of these, chances are you will be pretty doggone happy at work. In "First, Break all the Rules", Marcus Buckingham points out that the great managers are those that focus on their employees' strengths and "manage around" their weaknesses. He doesn't mention it by name but isn't he really talking about self actualization? Being able to do what we do best (or being able to use our key talents, interests, strengths and capabilities) on a daily basis is a huge motivator. This approaches that state of Self-Actualization.

There's alot about Maslow's that we could discuss - and we will in the future. But for now, think of opportunities to match projects or tasks that may come up with the individual strengths and interests of your team members. And here's another thought to leave you with in regards to Maslow's: The higher you move up the hierarchy, the more "bang for your buck" you'll get. Focusing on the higher level needs of an individual will yield bigger performance results than the lower level needs. Stay tuned....

Personal Brand: Do you have a personal elevator statement?

I've had the opportunity to sit in on interviews the past few days. I've been surprised at how many applicants struggle with the simple question "Why are you the best person for this job?" Many of them have conducted themselves very well in the interview. They've been professional and personable; They've been able to talk about their relevant experience; They've been able to list their key skills and strengths. Yet, when the interviewer asks THE question - "Why should we hire you?" many of them choked.

In my career development classes I encourage participants to come up with their own personal elevator statement. An elevator statement is simply a statement that gives a compelling description (i.e sales pitch) about a service or product in the amount of time it would take to ride an elevator (20 - 30 seconds). So, if I'm looking for a job, the product or service in question is ME.

Think of an elevator question as a commercial about you. Think about your key strengths. Write down the two or three most compelling reasons why you should be hired. Write down exactly how an organization would benefit from having you on their payroll. Then use what you've written down to craft a brief (20-30 second) statement that answers THE question.

Here's an example:

"Well Mr. Lunnen, as you know, we've had several applicants for this position. Why do you feel you are the best person for the job?"

"I have consistently been in the top ten percent in sales performance for the last four years. I have been effective at building positive long-term relationships with both internal and external customers and have a personal committment to providing quality client experiences. I am a professional - in performance, demeanor and appearance and will represent your organization in the best possible light. I know that you'll find me a valuable asset to your team."

Your statment might sound much different than the one I've come up with off the cuff and that's fine - it needs to sound like you. But A statement like the one above sounds much more confident than stammering and stuttering about being a nice person and wanting to help people (not that there's anything wrong with that). The point is to have something prepared in advance so that when THE question does come up you are prepared with a well thought out response. If I have a good personal elevator statement committed to memory I will never again have the "deer in the headlights" expression on my face when the hiring manager asks me why I'm the right person for the job.

Bad Leadership: How Not to Manage a Team (Part 1)

I actually heard this on the floor the other day. I walked past a supervisor's desk while she was doing a one-on-one with a new agent. She had two sheets of paper in front of her and was saying "These are my team's numbers with you and these are my team's numbers without you. You're dragging my whole team down." Wow! How do you think this new agent felt? Do you think this agent left that discussion wanting to do a better job? More than likely he left wanting to find a better job. I can't say that I blame him...

Effective Leadership: Do I have to know it all?

Think back to elementary school. Remember your teachers? Their job was to impart their knowledge to you. We were little kids - we didn't know alot back then. So our teachers would do their best to fill our little "skulls full of mush" with the useful information we would need to be successful, productive adults. This model may have worked alright for kids but this is not the most effective approach for adults.

Some leaders think they are supposed to function in this same teacher/pupil mode. ("You just sit there quietly and I'll tell you everything you need to know...") But this approach overlooks a fundamental element in managing adults. And that fundamental element is "adults know stuff." I know - it's pretty profound isn't it? But it's surprising how often we think our job as a coach is to impart all of our wisdom to our agents - the typical "sage on the stage" scenario. That is not what a coach's role is about. Obviously there are skills and tips we can share with our agents but effectively managing performance is more about drawing things out of our agents than putting things in. Plus, we can miss opportunities to leverage skills and experience our agents already have.

In the mid nineties Michael Jordan got this hair-brained idea to retire from basketball and play baseball for awhile (a very short while!). Fortunately, he came to his senses and decided to go back to basketball. Many folks asked him why he was coming back to the NBA. He believed that even after all the things he had accomplished in his basketball career he could still improve in some areas. One of those areas was his free throw shooting. His free throw percentage wasn't bad - but it wasn't all that good. So he made it a point to work with a coach and practice everyday on his free throw shooting. To me, this paints a very interesting little picture. Imagine Michael Jordan, quite possibly the greatest basketball player in history, working with a coach to help him improve his skills in a particular area. Now, if Michael and his "coach" were to play a little one-on-one, you know Michael would smoke him! But that's the whole point - to be an effective coach, we don't have to necessarily be able to "outplay" our agents.

Obviously it helps to be grounded in the fundamentals but effective coaching is more about motivating people than transferring "our" knowledge to them. I'm not recommending you try this, but a truly great coach can improve performance even if he knows absolutely nothing about his employee's actual "job". That's because great coaches focus on people more than process. Now, being an expert on the process might help, but that is not what will have the biggest impact on developing people. The coach/agent relationship is far more important than the coach's depth of process or product knowledge.

If you feel pressure to know more or be smarter than all of your agents - relax! That is not what your agents are expecting from you. Instead, look for ways to build on what your agents already have. Look for ways to fine-tune and tweak what's already there instead of ignoring it. Look for ways to remove obstacles (both internal and external) that might be holding them back. And most importantly, focus on a positive, professional, supportive relationship between you and your team.

Effective Leadership: The Value of Failure

This past weekend I was at a family reunion in western Montana. It was your typical family reunion - too much food, too much noise and too many people I didn't recognize. It was a good time though, and it provided me with a little reminder at the expense of my two-year old's physical and mental well being!

The reunion was held at a hunting lodge owned by a cousin who runs an outfitting business. (See the picture of his lodge) There is a stocked fishing pond literally steps away from the back door. Needless to say, my wife and I had to keep a very close eye on my son, Noah, as we worried he would get too close to the pond and take an unintentional swim. Over and over we told him to stay away from the pond. Yet he would continually walk towards the pond to see how close he could get until one of us bolted from the deck to grab him. Well, eventually it happened: as he was holding the hand of an older cousin and walking around the pond he decided to make his break for the water. He wiggled away from his cousin, darted to the edge of the pond and reached down toward the water. You've probably noticed toddlers are a bit top heavy - they have big heads - so Noah fell headlong into the pond. His cousin Spencer was right there and had him out of the water in about two seconds but that's all it took for Noah to learn his lesson. His Mom and I had told him over and over what might happen if he got too close to the edge, but it wasn't until he experienced it himself that he "got it." For the rest of the day, Noah wanted nothing to do with the "yucky" pond.

One of the key requirements of adult learning theory is providing an environment in which it is safe to fail. Without even realizing it, we had placed Noah into this type of environment. Obviously an unsupervised two-year old playing beside a pond could be a recipe for disaster, but because there were several safe guards in place (ie. multiple adults and older cousins keeping an eye on all the rugrats) it was actually a good learning environment. Noah was able to experience first-hand the dangers of getting too close to the water's edge. That icy, two second plunge taught him more about ponds than anything his mother or I could have told him.

On a fairly consistent basis I'll have supervisors come into the training office voicing their concern that a brand new agent is "messing up." Uhhh....Yep, new agents will do that from time to time, but here's "where the rubber hits the road," so to speak. Here's where you can tell the difference between a good leader and an average (or poor) leader. The good leader will use those "mistakes" as a coaching opportunity, a chance to build up the agent and leave them better prepared the next time a similar situation arises. The average or poor leader may treat a mistake like an act of disobedience or an affront to the leader's authority. (Think of Cartman from Southpark yelling "Never question my authority!!")

Perhaps some leaders confuse training with performance. They may think because a newhire has been through "training" they will hit the floor doing everything exactly right. That would be great, but that's not a realistic expectation. Even if the agent has "heard" everything they need to know to perform their job, it will take actually "doing" the job and, yes, "failing" a few times before it starts to stick. The trainer's job is too teach the new agent what he or she needs to know - the knowledge. The leader's job is to help them put it into practice - the execution.

Every interaction a leader has with an agent provides two possible outcomes. The leader will either build up the agent or tear them down - it's really as simple as that. Mistakes are mistakes - they need to be corrected, but not at the expense of the leader/agent relationship. As leaders we have the power to determine how we go about correcting those mistakes. Good leaders see them for what they are - they are errors that once corrected will make the agent even better. An average or poor leader may see mistakes as another "mark against" an agent they don't want to spend time devoloping - it's easier to just get them off their team. It sounds counterintuitive but failing is one of the building blocks of success. The test comes in how we as leaders deal with failure and how we help our agents deal with failure.

Perception Paradigms: Do you see what I see?

So I was supposed to fly out to Denver at 6am this morning but got bumped until 10:30. So I’ve got some time to kill! As I sit here I can see a FedEx jet across the tarmac and I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my fourteen year old daughter Amanda a few weeks ago.

We were coming home from soccer practice and stopped right behind a FedEx van when she said: “You know what Dad? I never noticed the arrow in the FedEx logo until just a few weeks ago. Isn’t that funny?” An arrow in the FedEx logo? I didn’t know what she was talking about and I told her as much. She showed me where to look and … wow! There it was! I could see it too. I had seen that logo for much of my life and I had never noticed the arrow. What about you? Can you see it? Now, whenever I see the familiar logo, my eyes are immediately drawn to the arrow. Yet for the past thirty years I had never noticed it.

It reminded me of the story Stephen Covey tells in “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” when he displayed the line drawing of a woman to his class. Half of his students saw an attractive young woman and the other half saw an old peasant woman. All the students were looking at the exact same picture and yet they saw two very different things. He used this analogy to set up a discussion about paradigms. Just as my daughter showed me how to look at the logo, when one half of Covey’s class showed the other half how to look at the picture of the woman, they, like me, had a paradigm shift – an ‘aha’ moment.

Think about any political campaign - especially the current presidential campaign. Both parties love to paint the opposing side in the most demagogue-ish (if I can use that word) terms. If you buy the Democrat position, you may think all Republicans are evil, warmongering, capitalists who want to poison the water and pollute the air. If you side with the Republicans, you may believe all Democrats are "soft on terrorists" marxists who want to give condoms to our kindergartners. Well, the truth is obviously much different than the broad brush strokes applied by political pundits. But at the root of political demagoguery are paradigms. We each have our own world view and that view informs our thoughts, opinions and behaviors. My world view might be different than yours and yet we both think we're right. Paradigm shifts can happen when we take the time to look at a situation from another person's point of view.

A colleague of mine shared a story in a recent training class. A few years back he belonged to a city council that was evenly split along liberal/conservative lines. More often than not the six-member council would deadlock in a 3 - 3 tie with the mayor being the tie-breaker. But something interesting began to happen. When the council talked about the end-result (Covey would call this "beginning with the end in mind") they realized there was much more upon which they agreed than disagreed. The disagreements only came in how they would get to their agreed upon result. That sounds so simple. Yet for this city council it made all the difference in the world. Knowing that they all wanted the same thing elevated the discussion from fractious political debate to a much more productive "give and take" approach that resulted in the council achieving many of there goals. After all, issues like crime, public safety, quality schools and a healthy economy are not political issues. They are important to everyone regardless of political affiliation. But it took a paradigm shift for the city council to see it. It took a light bulb going off in each of the council members' heads that said "Aha, these folks all want the same thing I want!"

Paradigm shifts don't mean we'll magically change our opinions or deeply held beliefs. To the contrary, it may make us feel even more strongly about those things. But being open minded enough to hear something out that at the outset seems completely disagreeable may help us understand where someone else is coming from and may ultimately lead to the kind of discussion that leads to a win-win solution.

How's the Weather?

Okay, it is not my intention to get political here but I think this is worth reading. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, recently had this to say about global warming. I think it's important to hear him out as it looks like our nation is on the verge of making some stupendously idiotic moves in the name of "stopping global warming". You can read his remarks here:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Employee Development: Picasso or Cezanne? Fleetwood Mac or the Eagles? You Decide!

Last week I had the privilege of attending the annual ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) convention in San Diego. One of the highlights of the conference was a keynote address given by Malcolm Gladwell. He's the author of "Tipping Point" and "Blink" - two excellent books I highly recommend. In his address Gladwell explored the concept of 'genius' using several fascinating examples. Let me try to paraphrase:

The artist Picasso burst on to the modern art scene in his early twenties. He was almost immediately revered as a genius and people clamored to purchase his work. The paintings Picasso made in his twenties and thirties are worth about four times as much as those from his later years. Paul Cezanne, on the other hand, was a "starving artist" for years and years until, finally, in the later years of his life, people began to recognize his artistic genius. His paintings from the end of his career are worth about eight times as much as those from his younger years. Both Picasso and Cezanne are viewed as geniuses but they achieved that status in very different ways and on very different time-tables.

The rock group Fleetmac Mac is best known for their mid-70's, Stevie Nicks-Lindsay Buckingham sound heard on their grammy winning album "Rumors". But what many folks don't realize is that "Rumors" was their 16th album! The group had actually started in the mid sixties with drummer Mick Fleetwood, bassist John McVie (the "Mac" part of Fleetwood Mac) and guitarist Peter Green. Fleetwood Mac slogged it out for over a decade with a revolving door of musicians but it wasn't until right before the "Rumors" album that the group really took off. Fleetwood Mac might be viewed as the classic rock equivalent of Cezanne. The Eagles might be viewed as the Picassos of rock and roll. They formed in 72 or 73 and were shortly at the top of the charts with their first album. By 1975 they were one of the biggest bands in the business. Like Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles are considered musical geniuses from that time period. Again, the Fleetwood Mac/Eagles scenario illustrates two different types of genius. One type, like Picasso, sees success quickly. The other type, like Cezanne, takes longer to achieve that success but when it does the results are worth the wait.

Gladwell points out that in today's music business Fleetwood Mac wouldn't have a chance. No label would be willing to give a band a decade to develop their genius. He also observes that, unfortunately, that shortsightedness often spills over to the business world as well. I agree.

Do we sometimes overlook or even lose someone who has tremendous long-term potential because they aren't a 'Picasso' right out of the gate? Perhaps what organizations need are leaders who approach talent management with the eyes of a long-term investor rather than those of a "day trader". While companies will always appreciate the 'Picassos' on their team, perhaps they should learn to appreciate the 'Cezannes' as well. After all, 50 million Fleetwood Mac fans can't be wrong....

Mean Bosses Cost More Than You Think...

My company's HR Director, Pam Allen, passed along this article from the Mountain States Employers Council newsletter. I thought it was pretty interesting.

"Ethics, manners, nice people finish last...we have heard it all before. Well, guess what? Mean does cost in terms of employee productivity and performance. A study by the University of Florida and University of Southern California demonstrated that verbal abuse, which included yelling at employees and disparaging them in front of others, hampered subsequent employee creativity, problem solving, the performance of routine tasks as well as the ability to be good team players. Rude and abusive behavior actually impeded employee cognitive functioning.

The study involved three situations. In the first situation, a person showed up late for class, once dismissed, the professor yelled at the class participants about how unprofessional the students were compared to other universities she had taught at. The second situation involved students arriving at a scheduled test site where a person greeted them by saying, "Can't you read the sign?" and continued berating them. The third situation involved a group of students who arrived at a classroom only to be told the room had been changed and were given directions to proceed to the new room.

The groups who were berated performed poorly on subsequent cognitive tests when compared to the group that was simply redirected to another room in a courteous manner. Another interesting finding was those groups were also less likely to engage in constructive helping behavior towards others. This study is discussed in detail in the October 2007 issue of the Academy of Management Journal.

These findings provide more data showing that how employees are treated in the workplace is linked to overall productivity, and subsequent engagement and retention."

From Mountain States Employers Council May 2008 Bulletin/Newletter

Now, Something Totally Different....

Laura and I (well, actually Laura - I was just there for the conceptual design phase of the project) just had our sixth child, Adam. You would think I would be used to this by now but I am still amazed at how different each of our kids are from each other. How can six kids with the same two parents be so completely unique? It is amazing to think about the billions of people on Earth and realize that we are all different aren't we? I don't have anything to ad other than that I think that's pretty cool - I really just wanted to post this pic of Noah and Adam.

Experiential Learning: Are You Experienced?

As a trainer I'm always beating the drum about making training "experiential". Adult learning theory stresses the importance of experiential learning and hands-on training and, of course, I agree with that - it's crucial. But I like to think that "experiential" also refers to what the adult learner brings with them to the classroom.

As a trainer, I am doing a great disservice if I do not acknowledge and leverage the wealth of experience that my participants have. In any given class I'm sure I have multiple individuals who are full-blown experts at something. True, they may be new to my particular industry, but chances are they are bringing with them a bevy of experiences, skills and insights that will help them in their current undertaking. Why not build on what they already have instead of building from scratch? One of the easiest ways to do this is to simply give your class plenty of time for discussion. Let them talk. Let them bring up past experiences. I've found that in most cases the more my participants talk the better. It's the basic "guide on the side" vs. "sage on the stage" philosophy.

This past week I attended an ASTD seminar with Cynthia Clay, President of NetSpeed Learning in Seattle. She shared a great quote from George Siemen of the University of Manitoba. He views the training professional as a "museum curator". A trainer should be "an expert who creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored and connected." Wow. What a great analogy. Our job isn't necessarily to jam folks' brains full of everything we know but rather to create an environment where they learn on their terms. One of the best ways for adults to learn is from other adults and sometimes one of the best things a trainer can do is shut up and let participants talk.

I remember a Sunday school teacher a few years back, an older lady who was a retired school teacher - a very intelligent woman steeped in the traditional "education" approach. It seems nearly every week we would get to a point in her lessons where there would be some great discussion going on or at least the potential for some great discussion- but this sweet lady always nipped it in the bud! "Well, we need to cover all of this material so let's move on", she'd say. Why was it so important that we moved on? To be honest, I got more out of the contributions made by other class members than from her "curriculum". This is an example of being curriculum driven vs. learner driven. Focus on the learner not the curriculum! I would much rather have participants really "get" one or two topics than simply hear a dozen topics just for the sake of "getting through" the material.

C.S. Lewis said "a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument." We cannot underestimate the value of experience. It is a key element in adult learning. It means we need to give participants hands-on experience but it also means we need to make the most of the experience they already have. Much of the learning that takes place in your classroom may very well come from the experiences shared by your participants. Don't be afraid to let that happen.

Corporate Stewardship: What I Learned from Boy Scouts and Sheep Herders

A long, long time ago I was a Boy Scout. In addition to memorizing the scout law (“a scout is trustworthy, loyal, brave”, etc…) my scoutmaster made us memorize the Outdoor Code. I won’t recite it for you, but one of the main ideas was that you should always leave a campsite better than you found it – clean up your mess, don’t leave a fire-ring, have little or no impact on the environment, and so forth. It makes sense - it’s Common Courtesy 101. But there’s a broader application. The Outdoor Code is basically introducing the concept of stewardship isn’t it? I think there is value in looking through the “stewardship lens” as we view our roles as leaders at work.

A steward is someone who has been given responsibility and accountability over something – usually something of high value. For the good steward, it is not merely enough to “take care of” his charge – that’s the bare minimum. The good steward wants to leave his “something” better than he found it. A good example is illustrated in a discussion I heard in Sunday school a few years back. The teacher asked the question: “What is the difference between a sheep herder and a shepherd?” The class consensus went something like this: A sheep herder is a hired-hand. He takes care of the sheep because he has to – he’ll get fired if he doesn’t. He does the minimum required to keep his job. But don’t expect him to go above and beyond or to put himself at risk when danger emerges (i.e. wolves, robbers, storms). The shepherd, on the other hand, does what he does out of genuine concern – even love – for his flock. He will leave the flock to go after the lone lost lamb. He will risk his very life to protect his sheep. But the shepherd’s focus is not only on keeping his sheep safe from harm but also on helping them grow, prosper and be happy.

So you may be saying, “Okay, this shepherd talk is great for Sunday school class, but what about here at work?” Good question. But before we leave the sheep scenario, let me ask you this: if you were a sheep, would you rather follow a sheep herder or a shepherd? And here in the real world, would you rather have a sheep herder supervisor who is “managing” you like another unpleasant task (i.e. doing the least amount of work required) or a shepherd supervisor who is genuinely interested in helping you grow, prosper and be happy in your position? In which scenario are you most likely to enjoy your job? In which scenario are you most likely to perform better?

In a work setting what does stewardship look like? Am I suggesting you’ll need to risk your life fighting off wolves for your agents? No. What I am saying is that our relationships with agents will be more satisfying and productive for them and for us if we think of ourselves as not just managers but as stewards. The next time you get a new agent on your team I challenge you to ask yourself: “What can I do to leave this agent better than I found her?” Then work to ensure that every interaction you have with that agent builds on that theme.

Stewardship is a very deep concept that can be applied to every aspect of our lives. For the sake of this conversation we’re just applying it to our roles here at work. But there is tremendous power in approaching our day to day job related duties as a steward. Oh, I almost forgot to mention. There’s another word for steward with which you may be more familiar. The word is “coach”.

Effective Teams: The Tao of Ralph and Sam

Some of you who have attended CORE training recently have probably heard me mention the greatest cartoon ever made – the old 1950’s Warner Brothers cartoon with Ralph and Sam. Ralph was a coyote (played by Wyle E. Coyote) and Sam was a sheep dog. The episodes always began with Ralph and Sam meeting each other and walking to work together. “Morning Ralph”, “Morning Sam”, they’d say and they would ask about each other’s kids, wife etc. Then they’d finally get to work – and this is where the fun started! They would each punch in to the SAME time clock then go to work. Sam’s job was to guard the sheep and Ralph’s job was to steel the sheep. Of course what follows is ten minutes of slapstick mayhem and violence – Ralph always at the receiving end – like falls from cliffs, explosions and anvils landing on heads. It’s the good clean fun we expect from those great old Warner Brothers shorts. But believe it or not, there’s a message for us in these brilliant cartoons.

I’m sure we’ve all experienced times where our team or department seems to be at odds with other parts of the organization. Perhaps it takes the form of a process that is so cumbersome it becomes a major performance blocker or maybe it’s an attitude (implied, inferred or actual) that says “that’s not my job”. Whether these problems are intentional or unintentional they have the same effect: they get in the way of us being truly effective.

At one of my previous companies we would refer to the accounts receivable department as the “sales prevention” team. While it was purely unintentional, their processes were very customer “un-friendly” to say the least. Ironically, one of this company’s stated aspirations was “let’s make it easy for our customers to do business with us.” Frankly, the A/R team made it easier for our customers to do business with our competition!

My example may be extreme, but can you think of anything we might do that conflicts with other parts of the organization? Are we ever guilty of self-inflicted “catch 22’s”? Do we ever feel like we’re our own worst enemy? It sounds very simplistic, but I think the key to avoiding the “Ralph and Sam” syndrome is to keep the big picture in view. One of the risks of departmentalizing is “nearsightedness”, where we lose the ability to see things that are farther away. Our focus becomes our own group or department sometimes at the expense of the larger objective. The more we can do to help our teams understand the big picture, the more agent buy-in we’ll have. That means “Ralph and Sam” will actually be working with each other instead of against each other.